DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the response in essence that: Paragraph [0017] notes that "configuration of the imaging device according to an operating parameter can allow for flexibility of how an imaging device operates allowing for future business model innovation" (see also para. [0051]). That is, there may be a "new business model" (para. [0047]). This means that there is support in the specification for receiving an operating parameter corresponding to a business model "in accordance with which the imaging device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate." If the business model is new, then the imaging device was not previously able to operate in accordance with the model since it did not previously exist, and like the imaging device did not previously operate in accordance with the model.
While the Applicant’s specification discusses implementing a new business model of the imaging device, the Applicant’s specification does not describe that the imaging device “was not previously able to operate and did not previous operate”. Applicant alleges that the specification’s discussion of “allowing for future business model innovation” means that the business model did not previously exist. However, such an interpretation is neither express, implicit, or inherent disclosure of a business model "in accordance with which the imaging device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate". Each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim “is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The Applicant argues on page 8 of the response in essence that: FIG. 4 shows a process by which an operating parameter for such a business model is received (430), the imaging device is configured so that it is operable in accordance with the business model (432), and then the imaging device is operated according to the operating parameter so that it does operate in accordance with the business model (434). This means that there is support in the specification for configuring the imaging device based on the received operating parameter corresponding to the business model "so that the imaging device is now able to operate in accordance with the business model, even though the imaging device is not currently operating in accordance with the business model." In particular, (432) corresponds to this claim language.
The Examiner notes that FIG. 4 does not show a process as alleged, but is a block diagram for imaging device 424 (paragraph 68). Applicant argues that the description of imaging device instructions 432 provides support for “the imaging device is now able to operate in accordance with the business model, even though the imaging device is not currently operating in accordance with the business model”. However, the Applicant’s specification does not describe that “the imaging device is not currently operating in accordance with the business model” after or during imaging device instructions 432. Such an interpretation is also neither express, implicit, or inherent disclosure of Applicant’s specification.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “receive an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate”. While the Applicant’s specification discusses implementing a new business model of the imaging device, the Applicant’s specification does not describe that the imaging device “was not previously able to operate and did not previous operate”.
Claim 1 further recites “configure the imaging device based on the received operating parameter corresponding to the business model so that the imaging device is now able to operate in accordance with the business model, even though the imaging device does not operate in accordance with the business model”. The Applicant’s specification discusses instructions 432 provides support as configuring the imaging device. However, the Applicant’s specification does not describe that “the imaging device is not currently operating in accordance with the business model” after or during imaging device instructions 432. Claims 8 and 12 contain similar limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono et al. Publication 2018/0076952 (hereafter “Kono”) and Ishihara et al. US Publication 2011/0295695 (hereafter “Ishihara”).
Referring to claim 1, Kono discloses an imaging device, comprising:
a processing resource (paragraph 33, image processing apparatus 60 includes a processor 61); and
a memory resource storing non-transitory machine-readable instructions to cause the processing resource to (paragraph 33, The processor 61 executes various processes according to a program stored in the memory 62):
receive an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device did not previously operate (paragraph 57, the restricting unit 605 may prohibit execution of all of the printing process, the coping process, the scanning process, and the facsimile process or may prohibit only the execution of the printing process. In addition, in the normal mode, the restricting unit 605 permits the processing unit 601 to execute a process without restriction on the usage); and
configure the imaging device based on the received operating parameter corresponding to the business model so that the imaging device is now able to operate in accordance with the business model, even though the imaging device is not currently operating in accordance with the business model (paragraph 45, The release key is used to transition the operation mode of the image processing apparatus 60 from the prepaid mode to the normal mode); and
operate the imaging device according to the received operating parameter by at least one of:
performing an imaging device operation based on the operating parameter corresponding to the business model (paragraph 76, When the available usable is equal to or more than the usage, this means that the sum of usages of the processing unit 601 is equal to or less than the available usage. In this case, the restricting unit 605 permits the image forming unit 67 to execute the printing process); and
generating a user interface based on the operating parameter corresponding to the business model (paragraph 34, The operation unit 65 is used to operate the image processing apparatus 60).
While Kono discloses receiving an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device did not previously operate, Kono does not disclose expressly the imaging device was not previously able to operate in accordance with the imaging device.
Ishihara discloses receive an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate (paragraph 174, In FIG. 33, the service category of the services by the OCR application 1222 and the translation application 1223 is "Web service". Namely, these services are not provided by the image forming apparatus 10. The profile data of these services are not acquired from the provider application 1221 in steps S101 and S102, but rather downloaded from the download server 60, together with the scan translation widget 21c).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to a business model in accordance with which the image device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the image forming device to utilize a new, higher-functionality service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ishihara with Kono to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Referring to claim 2, Kono discloses wherein the imaging device operation includes at least one of:
a print job;
a scan job;
a copy job; and
a facsimile job (paragraph 30, image processing apparatus 60 has plural functions such as a print function, a scan function, a facsimile function, a copy function and the like).
Referring to claim 3, Kono discloses wherein:
the imaging device further includes a display device;
the processing resource is to cause the display device to display the user interface corresponding to the business model (paragraph 128, the image processing apparatus 60 may output the ratio parameter 251 stored in the storage unit 66. Specifically, the ratio parameter 251 may be displayed on the display 64).
Referring to claim 4, Kono discloses wherein the user interface includes settings of the imaging device (paragraph 34, The operation unit 65 is used to operate the image processing apparatus 60).
Referring to claim 6, Kono discloses wherein:
the imaging device is connected to an external server (paragraph 107, the prepaid key may be transmitted directly from the issuing device 20 to the terminal device 50 or the image processing apparatus 60); and
the external server is to provide operational information of the imaging device according to the business model (paragraph 41, the issuing device 20 provides a prepaid key that may include restriction conditions of image processing).
Referring to claim 8, Kono discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium (paragraph 33, The processor 61 executes various processes according to a program stored in the memory 62) including instructions that when executed cause a processing resource of an image device (paragraph 33, image processing apparatus 60 includes a processor 61) to:
receive an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device did not previously operate (paragraph 57, the restricting unit 605 may prohibit execution of all of the printing process, the coping process, the scanning process, and the facsimile process or may prohibit only the execution of the printing process. In addition, in the normal mode, the restricting unit 605 permits the processing unit 601 to execute a process without restriction on the usage); and
configure the imaging device based on the received operating parameter corresponding to the business model so that the imaging device is now able to operate in accordance with the business model, even though the imaging device is not currently operating in accordance with the business model (paragraph 45, The release key is used to transition the operation mode of the image processing apparatus 60 from the prepaid mode to the normal mode);
cause the image imaging device to operate in accordance with the business model (paragraph 45, The release key is used to transition the operation mode of the image processing apparatus 60 from the prepaid mode to the normal mode); and
configure the imaging device based on the received operating parameter corresponding to the business model (paragraph 74, In step S116, the prepaid key is stored in the storage unit 66. Further, the available usage and the ratio parameter 251 included in the prepaid key are stored in the storage unit 66); and
operate the imaging device according to the received operating parameter by at least one of:
performing an imaging device operation based on the operating parameter corresponding to the business model in response to the imaging device being in compliance with the business model (paragraph 76, When the available usable is equal to or more than the usage, this means that the sum of usages of the processing unit 601 is equal to or less than the available usage. In this case, the restricting unit 605 permits the image forming unit 67 to execute the printing process); and
generating a user interface based on the operating parameter corresponding to the business model for display on a display device (paragraph 34, The operation unit 65 is used to operate the image processing apparatus 60).
While Kono discloses receiving an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device did not previously operate, Kono does not disclose expressly the imaging device was not previously able to operate in accordance with the imaging device.
Ishihara discloses receive an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate (paragraph 174, In FIG. 33, the service category of the services by the OCR application 1222 and the translation application 1223 is "Web service". Namely, these services are not provided by the image forming apparatus 10. The profile data of these services are not acquired from the provider application 1221 in steps S101 and S102, but rather downloaded from the download server 60, together with the scan translation widget 21c).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to a business model in accordance with which the image device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the image forming device to utilize a new, higher-functionality service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ishihara with Kono to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Referring to claim 9, Kono discloses wherein the processing resource is to receive a different operating parameter corresponding to a different business model (paragraph 45, The release key is used to transition the operation mode of the image processing apparatus 60 from the prepaid mode to the normal mode).
Referring to claim 10, Kono discloses wherein the processing resource is to configure the imaging device based on the different operating parameter (paragraph 45, The release key is used to transition the operation mode of the image processing apparatus 60 from the prepaid mode to the normal mode).
Referring to claim 11, Kono discloses wherein the processing resource is to operate the imaging device according to the different operating parameter corresponding to the different business model by at least one of:
performing a different imaging device operation based on the different operating parameter (paragraph 57, the restricting unit 605 may prohibit execution of all of the printing process, the coping process, the scanning process, and the facsimile process or may prohibit only the execution of the printing process. In addition, in the normal mode, the restricting unit 605 permits the processing unit 601 to execute a process without restriction on the usage); and
providing a different user interface corresponding to the different business model .
Referring to claim 12, Kono discloses a system comprising:
a remote server including a plurality of operating parameters each corresponding to a business model of a plurality of business models (paragraph 116, the management device 70 may intensively manage the available usages of the plural image processing apparatuses 60);
a plurality of imaging devices (paragraph 114, The control system 3 includes plural image processing apparatuses 60), wherein each of the plurality of imaging devices are to:
receive an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device did not previously operate (paragraph 57, the restricting unit 605 may prohibit execution of all of the printing process, the coping process, the scanning process, and the facsimile process or may prohibit only the execution of the printing process. In addition, in the normal mode, the restricting unit 605 permits the processing unit 601 to execute a process without restriction on the usage); and
configure the imaging device based on the received operating parameter corresponding to the business model so that the imaging device is now able to operate in accordance with the business model, even though the imaging device is not currently operating in accordance with the business model (paragraph 45, The release key is used to transition the operation mode of the image processing apparatus 60 from the prepaid mode to the normal mode);
cause the image imaging device to operate in accordance with the business model (paragraph 45, The release key is used to transition the operation mode of the image processing apparatus 60 from the prepaid mode to the normal mode); and
operate according to the respective received operating parameter by generating a user interface corresponding to the respective received operating parameter (paragraph 120, the image processing apparatuses 60-1 to 60-3 count the usage and restricts execution of a process by the processing unit 601 according to the relationship between the counted usage and the available usage stored in the storage unit 66).
While Kono discloses receiving an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device did not previously operate, Kono does not disclose expressly the imaging device was not previously able to operate in accordance with the imaging device.
Ishihara discloses receive an operating parameter corresponding to a business model in accordance with which the image device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate (paragraph 174, In FIG. 33, the service category of the services by the OCR application 1222 and the translation application 1223 is "Web service". Namely, these services are not provided by the image forming apparatus 10. The profile data of these services are not acquired from the provider application 1221 in steps S101 and S102, but rather downloaded from the download server 60, together with the scan translation widget 21c).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to a business model in accordance with which the image device was not previously able to operate and did not previously operate. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the image forming device to utilize a new, higher-functionality service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ishihara with Kono to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Referring to claim 13, Kono discloses wherein the remote server is to determine, for each imaging device of the plurality of imaging devices, compliance with each of their respective business models (paragraph 116, the management device 70 may intensively manage the available usages of the plural image processing apparatuses 60).
Referring to claim 14, Kono discloses wherein the remote server is to determine the compliance at a predetermined frequency (paragraph 123, before executing the process, the image processing apparatus 60-1 inquires the management device 70 about whether or not to execute).
Referring to claim 15, Kono discloses wherein the remote server is to transmit the operating parameter to each of the plurality of imaging devices as software (paragraph 37, The transition key is a software key).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kono et al. Publication 2018/0076952 and Ishihara et al. US Publication 2011/0295695 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of well known prior art.
Referring to claim 5, Kono discloses the user interface (paragraph 34, The operation unit 65 is used to operate the image processing apparatus 60).
Kono does not disclose expressly wherein the user interface includes error reporting of the imaging device in response to an error occurring in the imaging device.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art for a printer’s user interface to report errors occurring in the device (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the user of any problems occurring with their print job in order to allow them to make corrections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Kono to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Referring to claim 7, Kono discloses the processing resource operating the imaging device, but does not disclose expressly the image device performing a self-test print job.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known and obvious in the art for a printer to perform a self-test print job (See MPEP 2144.03). The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a user to confirm that a printer is printing correctly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine well known prior art with Kono to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682